Favorite Schools

Favorite Teams

Susan Nielsen: In Oregon, your school might be a palace -- or a dump

south.JPG

In this 1999 file photo, then-Principal Sarah Boly checks out Beaverton School District's sparkling new Southridge High School. Beaverton will soon build a new $109 million high school and undertake multiple other projects using money from the $680 million capital construction bond approved by voters this week.
(The Oregonian/file)

Students in Beaverton soon will get a new $109 million high school, thousands of new computers and a dozen other big-ticket amenities on their school district's wish list.

Students elsewhere? Not so lucky. This week's passage of Beaverton's $680 million bond underscores the growing gap between Oregon communities over the condition of their K-12 school buildings and technology.

"We're going further into the haves and have-nots," says Sue Levin, a Beaverton parent and executive director of the Oregon chapter of Stand for Children, an education advocacy group. "I'm moved by Beaverton's support, and I wouldn't want to whack Beaverton for being the tallest poppy. ... But either your community has enough money to do right by the kids, or it doesn't. And increasingly, we're becoming a state that is divided into two."

The Beaverton School District does have poverty, but it's also home to some of the state's most affluent and educated residents, many of whom are Nike and Intel employees. Beaverton voters have approved six local school tax measures since the mid-1990s, including a local-option levy last year and the largest bond in Oregon history last week.

This extra tax money doesn't just help Beaverton keep up with growth. It also pays for decent science labs, admirable band rooms and seismically sturdy buildings. And now, thanks to a 2010 voter-approved state law easing restrictions on the use of bond money, Beaverton can use bond funds to do heavy maintenance and buy computers, too. This eases pressure on the general fund, allowing Beaverton to hire more teachers and reduce class sizes.

This is good news for Beaverton families, of course. But it's a stark contrast to the many Oregon school districts that either can't pass a bond or don't even try, knowing they'll fail.

"We have some communities where the economy just hasn't recovered," says Jim Green, deputy executive director of the Oregon School Boards Association. "They know they need schools, but they just can't do it."

Oregon voters have approved only about half of the roughly 40 local K-12 bond measures on their ballots over the past three years. Affluence isn't the only dividing line here: Some cash-strapped communities (David Douglas) do pass bonds against the odds, while other communities (Corbett) reject bonds to express anti-growth or anti-leadership sentiments. But voters' ability to pay is the major factor in the size and fate of a local bond measure – much more so than the actual condition of schools.

This is how Oregon ends up with Beaverton at one end of the spectrum and districts such as Springfield, Grants Pass, Gresham-Barlow and Seaside near the other. Consider: Seaside kids attend deteriorating schools in a tsunami zone, but Seaside voters rejected last year's bond measure -- partly because of local politics but mostly because of cost. Beaverton kids attend pretty nice schools already, yet their enviable portfolio will soon be sweetened with a $109 million high school, a $50 million middle school plus another half-billion in capital investments.

The technology gap is almost as startling. Students in Beaverton and other "have" districts will be more likely to take their state online tests next year in row upon row of fancy, fast computers, while students in "have-not" areas are more likely to waste class time taking turns on clunky, glitchy machines.

One extreme feels excessive; the other, lame.

"Our state," says Green, "needs to recognize there is a huge need out there."

State lawmakers do recognize the need, and they've passed legislation intending to enable a bigger state role in building and renovating schools. They know Oregon does less than most other states, and they're trying to change that practice. So far, they've found a little money here and there for K-12 capital needs, and at least one task force is researching solutions.

Still, the politics are challenging, says state Sen. Richard Devlin, D-Tualatin, one of the Legislature's chief budget writers and an advocate for doing more.

"The reality is, the state's ability is very limited," Devlin says. "And everything is competing with everything else."

I don't think the goal should be for every Oregon school district to keep up with the Beavertons. The money just isn't there, and the glossy amenities aren't essential to learning. But I do think it's a problem for the state of Oregon to make school attendance compulsory, and then look the other way when children attend class in buildings with major health or safety hazards.

Fortunately, there are common practices elsewhere that would add some sense to Oregon's current free-for-all. For example, Oregon could use a moderate chunk of its state bonding capacity to provide matching grants to K-12 districts, perhaps weighted to favor life-and-safety-related projects in districts with weaker tax bases. The state could also keep a useful inventory of schools based on condition, which would give voters better context for assessing local needs.

But for now, describing the problem is a lot easier than prescribing the solution. And this problem hits uncomfortably close to home:

Our schools are mirror images of society, as they always have been. Some are getting richer, more are growing poorer, and those in the middle are hanging on for dear life.